Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, June 5, 2015

It's not self-discipline

When it is externally imposed.

But it does demonstrate that intelligence is not an attractant for either men or women. It is, in fact, a disattractant for both sexes, albeit more strongly for adolescent women than for adolescent men. And there is no reason to believe this changes significantly over time.

45 comments:

If you don't have sex because you're intelligent which mostly repels people that's externally imposed, if you don't have sex because you understand what it is about and know the proper channels to have it...that's wisdom and more of a self-discipline.

It's a time investment thing. High IQ kids who can pass the entry barriers to elite schools for whatever reason, usually have parents who keep those kids very, very busy. So even if the kid is naturally attractive, they'll have less opportunity to develop intersexual relation skills or capitalize on the time they're alone with an interested person. The less attractive, the fewer opportunities.

The kid going to state knows he doesn't need to work that hard to get in, so he has more time to work on his interpersonal skills. With practice comes proficiency.

In my experience, the Dunning-Kruger effect can explain this. Lower-IQ guys are more confident because they don't over-analyse and assess all possible risk angles, while the high-IQ guy does. "Risk" being getting rejected, beat up by a giant ex-boyfriend, or whatever.

While I do agree, I feel it's important to mention that intellect isn't the same as being a rebellious, sarcastic dickhead. Our gracious host has shown on many occasions that atheists aren't actually as smart as they (or sometimes we) think they are. All they have is snark, memes, appeals to authority and lots and lots of cookie-cutter arguments.

The equalist myth of sex underlying the "self control" error is part of the female imperative. Its implied that sex is evenly distributed rather than rolling uphill. Part of the reason some guys get so depressed and wallow incelf pity when they can't get laid. If everyone has equal prbability of sex and you aren't getting any, there's nothing you can do there's just something wrong with you. Very damaging myth for some guys and prevents self improvement.

But it does demonstrate that intelligence is not an attractant for either men or women. It is, in fact, a disattractant for both sexes, albeit more strongly for adolescent women than for adolescent men. And there is no reason to believe this changes significantly over time.

A few caveats:

1) Race. I'm not sure that the dumb end of the white gene pool has as much teen sex as blacks do, even if they might have more than higher-IQ whites.

2) Mate selection / impulse control. Higher-IQ people may not be any less attracted or attractive to potential mates, but are less likely to have casual sex with less desirable but easier partners than is the knuckledragger set.

That said, very high-IQ people would indeed have more of a problem than the normal range in socialization and sex. Having to learn how to talk to the animals, so to speak. This would be a bigger problem for women, who are more herd animals than are men.

Among whites, I imagine that the IQs of Alphas and Betas tend to cluster slightly above the 100 average, and Deltas squarely on it, or maybe even slightly below. (I don't buy the idea / Hollywood stereotype that Alphas are dumber than average.)

Omegas are the opposite, with their IQs all over the place, from very low to very high.

The high-IQ range would be where the Gammas and Sigmas cluster. And it may be precisely the higher IQs of Gammas which helps explain why they think they're so Special and should by rights be Alphas, and also end up taking over academia and running things. It just occurred to me that strict meritocracies, as opposed to more informally-based networks that arise from male dominance displays, may actually be harmful for society by having it end up top-heavy with Gammas.

Sigmas, like Gammas, probably cluster in the high IQ range. Unlike with Omegas or Alphas, I can't imagine stupid Sigmas, and I don't know how a socially competent but not socially dominant man of average IQ would end up as a Sigma rather than a Delta. But maybe I need more imagination...

I respectfully disagree. High IQ males become alphas, or at least a large majority of them do. The uber-alphas of business, law, start-ups etc., are all fit male who are very, very smart. Even the next few levels below the "masters of the universe" are mainly all very smart but fit males. Look at law, wall street, executive offices or entrepreneurs- all basically merit based advancement although some PC enters, you get a large majority of high IQ fit males who worked very hard for many, many years.

As a boomer I can't speak for high school today, but 40 years ago in a graduating class of over 1000, there were many clicks, and although the football and sports BMOC existed, they were already peaked by graduation (how many actually go to a Division I school and continue on?). This peaking of BMOC sports males seemed to be well known. It was the short-sighted (maybe an indicator of low IQ) girls who went for the already peaked versus the potential. But there were many girls available, and letting the short-sighted one go although they were the high n-count ones, seemed easy.

Once puberty came sometime in middle school and weight lifting could work, the smart males lifted, became fit, the acne cleared, and they became alphas who knew where they were going and they ignored the typical sports BMOC at will, as dead-ends they were.

As a high-IQ but very fit male (wrestling, lifting, long-distance running) who had had the best PSAT, SAT, highest GPA several semesters, and such as well as going to USNA, I certainly had the attributes and privileges of an alpha in high school. My college was unusual because life at USNA is different and almost all graduates are alphas.

The stereotype of the IQ geek with glasses may exist in popular culture, but for all three of my kid's high schools and then their college, what I saw was high IQ but fit alpha males, ignoring the PC, but moving on with life and getting whatever they wanted-- either n-count (few) our selection of high status mates. There was competition and selectivity/ranking for the best versus the good schools, and although girls had obviously extra help, the smart and fit guys were the alphas. The Bill Gates/ Steve Jobs/Mark Cuban effect had happened. There were quite a few pc-playing smart girls who all dominated the top graduates, quite a bit different from my days. I assumed many of these girls would self-destruct before 35 when they got to the real world without so much girl power privilege and protection. What I didn’t see were many high IQ glasses type omega geeks. I did see a few wannabes who didn’t have the high IQ but had the popular culture attribute down (maybe trying to follow the culture because they didn’t have the brain-power).

Now of course I am not referring to PUA and faking the attributes of an alpha, or alpha by high N-count. I think that these are simply more dead-enders enjoying a short time of meaningless fun and infatuation. The true alpha builds something.

Interesting essay. I can't really say it contradicts anything I wrote, as I did state that Alphas probably center slightly above average in intelligence. Higher-IQ brains take longer to mature than lower-IQ ones (easily observed with the black vs. white maturity rates), so the dumb lunks will peak early. And once all the BMOC Alphas are out of the equation, those that remain will probably be in the 110-120 IQ range on average. A moderately high, but good, IQ range to be in.

You mention Gates, Jobs, and Cuban, but if you'll notice, whereas Jobs' and Cuban's wives were probably quite attractive when they were young, Melinda Gates wasn't. Of course, Bill Gates is the most notoriously SJW of the three, so I suspect he's one of those "leaders of men but not of women" types, and therefore I highly suspect he's actually a Gamma, not an Alpha.

So my point is: becoming wealthy or successful doesn't mean you're an Alpha. Of course, success generally requires good interpersonal skills and brains. But, if they are horrible at attracting women, they're not Alpha, even if they are "leaders of men" who attract male followers easily.

In fact, I suspect that most politicians, CEOs, and other such leaders are either Alphas or Gammas, as only those two sociosexual groups have the narcissism, the ambition to run things, and the IQ required to do so. But unfortunately, as our civilization has headed into decline, I suspect that Gammas have probably been progressively (heh) replacing Alphas at the top. This may explain why ridiculous SJW attitudes have become more and more entrenched.

I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that high intelligence is anti-attraction... Rather, it narrows the candidate pool significantly, especially for women (thank you, hypergamy). Combine that with parallel socialization issues and you have a recipe for what is happening.

One test of this would be a measure of how these relative rates skew over time - i.e. do smart people, especially women, become dramatically more likely to have sex when surrounded by relative intellectual peers.

Speaking as one of those high-IQ betas, I'll tell you right now there is no way in hell I would have kept my virginity in high school as a matter of personal preference and "self-discipline." When I had the opportunity to get laid, of course I jumped on it instantly.

Corvinus,The high-IQ range would be where the Gammas and Sigmas cluster. And it may be precisely the higher IQs of Gammas which helps explain why they think they're so Special and should by rights be Alphas, and also end up taking over academia and running things.

Two definition issues. I take high IQ, to mean above 145 or so (3 std. dev). People with 120-130 IQ end up in academia because the smarter ones leave the dull and relentless PC ivory tower. Whether or not the above average politicians that rule academia are alpha is another debate.

Second definition issue, Alpha doesn’t mean high n-count. High n-count can be accomplished through deception, “dark alpha and other BS. Alphas are the natural leaders, are respected, and build things/teams—even if selfishly only building individual wealth. Apparently in today’s generation, Alphas can get a high N-count, although this Christian boomer can’t understand why one would want to. Where does high n-count pursuit lead once we reach our upper-40’s? I agree that the 120 to 130 males might have some trouble being alphas. They are smarter than most, but there are enough smarter males in the 1% above 145 to be the curve breakers in their classes and outthink them once in the real world. I don’t know too many students with only 130 IQ who get into the good schools outside of trust funds or some other fantastic set of achievements (i.e. Olympic quality athlete). It is hard to alpha when you are in the upper grouping, but not the top ones. Many of the remaining meritocracies, although not completely based on merit, still select for smarts first and then toughness and other skills, including luck next. Those that rise seem to me to be mainly male, very smart and alpha. An IQ 125 will tend to make a good engineer, lawyer, scientist (if they exist anymore), but not a great one. So much of today’s work takes sheer brainpower as a minimum entry requirement. [Wall Street may be a good exception, although the very smart rise to the top, but risk appetite and risk evaluation may be the premier attributes—too many different tell all books on it to tell how the Quints versus the mad bulls work out]

Now, at what point high IQ gets so high that personal relations becomes difficult or can’t be mimicked/learned and therefore prevent being an alpha, is yet another debate, even if it is currently popularized on TV by “Scorpion.”

Last comment, I am not so sure that alphas are being replaced. Maybe there is replacement of alphas in some levels of politics, most levels of academia and government, and some levels of the entertainment field; but there is not much replacement in business, entrepreneurship, finance, law, military fields.

As for temptation in high school, I did not decline. However I certainly did not go for for the short timeline oriented brainless cheerleaders or modern dance types. Those I declined gracefully. With over 3000 students in my high school, the few cheerleaders were not the epitome of female perfection and I didn't believe in pump and dump. Why? I know that is old-fashioned thinking, but the West used to work that way.

I agree that the Idiocracy Effect (2006 movie) exists in the socialized world of the declining west. However I think that this is a new phenomenon. Until the 1800 where starvation or related sickness from malnutrition was common for 98% of mankind, I think IQ was still selectable for micro-evolution survival advantages and may have helped develop raised IQ tribes. Once the West grew rich it could self-corrupt with the diseases of socialism and ignoring reality which might give survival advantages for low IQ in micro-evolution.

I don’t see this effect working in the rest of the world where shortages and hunger still teach their lessons (Middle East, India, Africa?) China is a mystery to me regarding the Idiocracy Effect as I see that China is on line to decline and grey before it gets rich, but they do seem to give preference to higher IQ in their society for extra births. What the West will do if it survives or after the fall (i.e. Steyn’s After America) is only conjecture. But this area and what to do while it happens is Vox’s specialty not mine. The elderly, what I’ll be when the fall comes in 20 years of so, don’t do well in chaotic situations.

But it does demonstrate that intelligence is not an attractant for either men or women.

So... wouldn't that disprove that sapience evolved? Or is this a case of sex selection vs natural selection? (i.e. the babes in the tribe may not like the dork, but his smarts did kill all other men so...)

I'm not joking, the implication that intellect isn't bred for is huge in its implication for evolutionary theory.

It's possible that some intellect is bred for, but that too much becomes a negative. Just as a certain amount of height is an advantage and presumably bred for, but extremely tall people tend to have health problems that would work against that in breeding.

But it does demonstrate that intelligence is not an attractant for either men or women.

So... wouldn't that disprove that sapience evolved? Or is this a case of sex selection vs natural selection? (i.e. the babes in the tribe may not like the dork, but his smarts did kill all other men so...)

Natural selection and Sexual selection are two different things, and sometimes one or the other has more impact on the gene pool. In the US, sexual selection reigns. If we were to deregulate and allow idiots to kill themselves with drugs, starvation, driving without a seatbelt, etc., then natural selection (which favors high IQ) would have more impact.

Yes, I was defining "high IQ" in more or less the same way you do. And I agree that academics are not necessarily going to have 130+ IQs. There are two reasons I can think of offhand: 1) leftoid PC fields like women's studies would obviously not require a high IQ, and 2) hyperspecialization (for example, in fields like chemistry where a professor only studies one thing) doesn't really require a high IQ either. True high-IQ persons in academia will tend to end up in fields where they can be more Renaissance Man than Idiot Savant.

And, I do agree that high N-count doesn't define Alpha. Quality does. If the high N-count comes from boinking a bunch of nasty fat whores, then even a Gamma can do that. Whereas you might have a strict practicing Christian who may only have a small N-count due to indiscretion or drinking, but if he ends up marrying a tall blonde knockout who completely adores him, he would still count as an Alpha. Roissy has some rule that IIRC goes like: getting with one dimepiece is equivalent to 10 8s, or 100 6s, or 1,000 4s. I think of it as like the stellar magnitude scale in astronomy, or the pH scale in chemistry.

I do disagree with you about those fields where you claim there is not much replacement of Alphas ("business, entrepreneurship, finance, law, military fields"). Those fields still have a lot of Alphas, but they are all definitely still filling up with Gammas, probably to the same or a similar degree to how they're filling up with women (or, in the case of finance and law, Jews). Probably the least affected would be entrepreneurship, certain businesses, and certain sections of the military such as the Marines.

From an evolutionary perspective, an excessively high IQ isn't necessary. I wouldn't call it a negative trait. I would rather label it as irrelevant, as some have already done. You don't need to be a Mensan to protect and provide for your family. It would be equivalent to having a novelty-sized penis: you may THINK that's what women want, but slightly-above-average is actually the sweetspot (in both cases). What will you do with the excess anyway? There is no biological gap it can fill (heh), hence it will not feature high on the evolutionary checklist.